Volume 33 — Court of Claims Reports

The Reporters1 statement of the case: The folio wing are the facts of the case, as found by the court : I. The petition in this case was filed in this court April 10, 1880.

The Reporters'1 statement of the case: The facts of this case are set forth in the opinion of the court. No findings of fact were filed.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The allegations of the petition demurred to are set forth in the opinion of the court: The… Held: however, that the judgment creditor had no contract with his- debtor which forbade the State from legislating, within its discretion, to reduce the rate of interest upon judgments previously obtained in its courts, and that interest until payment not expressly provided for by contract is treated as statutory damages for the delay. “…

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The allegations of the petition demurred to are set forth in the opinion of the court. Mr. John W. Trainer (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Dodge) for the demurrer: The claimant relies upon the decisions of this court in the two cases of Hobbs v. The United States (19 C. OIs. R., 220), and Hew Torlc v. The United States (No. 16430 O. OIs. R.). Upon examination, neither of these cases will be found to sustain his contention.

The Reporters1 statement of the ease: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: UPPER WORK — CASE No. 17782. I. On August 4,1885, Lieut. Ool.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. At the time of the depredation hereinafter found the claimant was a citizen of the United States, residing in Taos County, in the Territory of New Mexico. II. On the 19th day of June, 1874, the claimant, was the owner of tbe horses and mares described in the petition, then and there reasonably worth the sum o'f $480.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: Defendants’ motion under Revised Statutes, 1088, raised the question whether the Comanche Indians were in amity with the United States when the'depredation was committed.

The Reporters’’ statement of tbe case: Tbe following are tbe facts of the case as found by tbe court: I. At tbe time of tbe depredation hereinafter stated, claimant’s 'decedent, Henry 0. Miller, was a citizen of tbe United States and a resident of tbe State of Missouri, where claimant now resides. II.

The Reporters'1 statement of tlie case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant and decedent at the time of the depreda tions were citizens of the United States, residing in Humboldt County, State of California, and in the years 1859, I860,1861, and 1862 the said Indians destroyed property belonging- to claimant and decedent consisting of houses, horses, and cattle which, at the time of the destruction, was worth more than the sum of…

The Reporters'1 statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant, Eobert Dunlap, lias been from a time long prior to the 28th day of August, 1891,… Held: in a case decided by him in the Circuit Court, that rules of the Treasury Department going to an absolute denial of justice should be disregarded by the courts.

<p> On an heir’s Motion. </p> <p>Suit is brought for one month’-s pay'by a mail contractor. Pending the action lie dies and his administratrix files an amended petition as such. Defendants file a counterclaim to recover money overpaid upon the same contract. Judgment is rendered against the admin-istratrix on the counterclaim for $32,098.64, to be paid out of the estate, if any, of the decedent (31 C. Cls. R., 332). Thereafter an heir of the decedent files a motion to vacate the judgment on the ground that at the time the administratrix was substituted as claimant she had been discharged as administratrix and the judgment was a nullity.</p> <p>I. The motion of one not a party to the record, except as represented by an administratrix, whose authority he denies, to dismiss a suit instituted by a deceased claimant will not be allowed.</p> <p>II. An administratrix “ discharged from said trust” upon condition of paying a certain sum to the heirs of the decedent and filing Touchers therefor will not he discharged under the statutes of Kansas until the money he paid and the Touchers filed.</p> <p>III. The right of an administratrix to maintain an action for a debt due the estate of her decedent depends upon the construction to he given to the statute of the State where the letters of administration were granted.</p> <p>IY. The law of Kansas proTides that the final discharge of an administrator or executor “ shall forever exonerate the party and his suretus from all liability under srich order unless his account shall be impeached for fraud or manifest error.” Under this provision the discharge operates to exonerate the administrator and his surefies only in respect of assets shown to hare heen paid or distributed and not to liability thereafter incurred.</p> <p>V. Whether the administratrix in this ease is or is not duly authorized to act is for the probate court of the State to determine. If she is not, defendants can go into the proper court and haTe an administrator appointed.</p> <p>YI. Where a question is raised as to the qualification of an administrator, the court will stay proceedings until a duly qualified administrator he appointed. If the proper court appoints a new administrator, the suit will he continued in his name; if it decides that the party who lias heen discharged is still administrator, the stay . of proceedings will he vacated.</p>

The Reporters'’ statement of the case: The following are the facts as found by the court: I. Morris Keim, the plaintiff, is a citizen of the United States. II.

The Reporters'1 statement of tbe case: Tbe facts of tbe case appear sufficiently in tbe opinion of tbe court. It is submitted that tbe word “all,” even in a literal interpretation, includes sucb officers as were dead, as well as those living, provided, as sucb officers, they come witliin tbe provisions and tbe spirit of tbe act.

The Reporters’ statement, of the case: The facts and documentary matter relied upon in this matter appear in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The evidence relied upon by tbe defendants to refute tbe claimant’s evidence of loyalty is set forth in tbe opinion of tbe court.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe defendants on the trial requested tbe court to find as follows The defendant Yuma Indians were not in tribal relation at tbe time of tbe alleged offense. The Yuma Indians were formerly Mexican citizens and became citizens of tbe United States by virtue of tbe provisions of tbe treaty between tbe United States and Mexico, known as tbe treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

<p>The Reporters1 statement of the case:</p> <p>The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts in the case as found by the court: I. The claimant at the time of the depredation hereinafter stated was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of San Miguel, in the Territory of New Mexico. II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: Tlie following are tlie facts in the case as found by the court : I. The claimants John Griffin and Sarah Griffin are citizens of the United States and residents of the town of Greenville, in the State of Mississippi. II.

The Reporters' statement of the case: Tbe following are the facts in the case as found by the court: 1. The claimants are ninety individual members of the Pottawatomie tribe of Indians, who in 1869 and 1871 presented claims to the Department of the Interior for depredations committed by others upon their stock, timber, or other property. 2. Claimants rely for recovery on these claims upon article 10 of the treaty made with the Pottawatomie tribe of Indians, February 28,1867.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimants are the parties referred to as “the legal or equitable owners or claimants of the steam towboat Future City, her barges in tow, cargoes thereon, freight and personal effects contained in them” in the act entitled, “An act granting jurisdiction and authority to the Court of Claims in the case of the towboat Future City, her barges, cargoes, and so forth;”…

The Reporters'1 statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. Claimant is an officer of the… Held: and all signals are made from said vessel; the usual daily inspections and customary drills and exercises are provided for under tlie direct supervision of the commanding officer and his subordinates, and the articles for the government of the Navy are read on the first Sunday of every mouth, as required by the laws of the service…

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. At the time of the depredation hereinafter stated the claimant was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California, where he now resides. II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: „ The facts relating to the depredation and the acts of the Indian outbreak are thus narrated by the claimant in his testimony and the agent of the Chirieahuas in his official report: “About October 2, 1881, I dispatched one of my teams, consisting of 10 mules and 2 horses with 3 wagons loaded with about 17,000 pounds of commissary stores for the United States military post of Camp Thomas, about 65 miles north of Will-cox, under charge…

The Reporters1 statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. At the time of the depredation hereinafter found the claimant was a citizen of the United States, residing in the ptate of Nebraska. The depredation was committed without cause or provocation on the part of the claimant or his agent in charge, and the property has never been returned or paid for. II.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe following are tbe facts of tbe case as found by tbe court: I. Tbe claimant is a citizen of tbe United States and was at tbe time of tbe depredations hereinafter referred to, and tbe depredations were' without just cause or provocation on the part ot' the claimant or his agent in charge of the property, which has never been returned or paid for. II.

<p> On the defendants’ Motion. </p> <p>It is a common practice in this court when there are two suits growing out of the same cause of action to consolidate them in order that evidence in the first need not he duplicated.in the second and that both may be disposed of by one trial: Conversely, parties are allowed to bring in subsequently accruing demands by amendments. The claimant brings his action for the use of a patented invention in a machine for rifling cannon. Subsequently, by successive amendments, he sets up causes of action, which had accrued after the suit was begun, for the use of his invention in a machine for cutting the interruptions in screws of the breech mechanism of guns, and for cutting the recoil cylinders of heavy guns. The defendants move to dismiss the amendments.</p> <p>I.Distinct causes of action can not be brought together, by proceedings subsequent to the bringing of the original action, without the consent of both parties.</p> <p>II.Consent to the filing of amendments may be given by acquiescence without a formal agreemen t.</p> <p>III.After delay by the defendants to strike out amended petitions, and when the statute of limitations would cut off part of the demands if a new suit were instituted now, the court will sever the causes of action and treat the amended petitions as original petitions of the time when each was filed, and the cases will proceed as distinct suits.</p>

The Reporters1 statement of the ease: The following are the facts of the case as found by tbe court: The claim in this case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Eepresentatives on the 19th day of October, 1888.

<p> On the claimants Demurrer. </p> <p>The petition avers that the claimants are a company chartered under ’jhe laws of the State of Colorado, doing business in the Republic of Mexico; that they were citizens of the United States residing in New York, and owners of property stolen by Indians in 1880-81 living in New Mexico and Arizona; that the property was taken into the United States; that Indians from the United States stole claimant’s property in Mexico and took it into the United States. Defendants plead in bar that the depredation occurred beyond , the territory of the United States and that the court has no jurisdiction. Claimants demur to the plea.</p> <p>I.The United States can not he required to make restitution for property taken on Mexican soil by Indians though they sustained tribal relations with and brought the property into the United States.</p> <p>II.The statute (26 Stat.L.,p>.851) gives the court authority “to inquire into and finally adjudicate” claims for property of citizens of “the United States taken or destroyed by Indians belonging to any band, tribe, or nation in amity with the United States.” Though there be no limitation in terms as to the place of taking, the general principle is that the statutes of a country do not run beyond its jurisdiction.</p> <p>III. The Indian depredation act is wholly remedial and provides a forum for litigation, hut creates no rights except that it extends the liability of the Indians under the Aet June 30,1834 (4 Stat. L., p.' 731), to the United States.</p> <p>IV. Every claimant, under the act of 1891, must go hack to the act of 1834 to establish a right of recovery. That act fixes the place of loss as “within the Indian country” or any “ State or Territory inhabited by citizens of the United States.” The purpose is to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes and to preserve peace on the borders.</p>

<p>The Reporter s’ statement of the ease:</p> <p>The grounds of the demurrer appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe foliowiug rules announced per curiam will inform tbe bar with regard to calls on tbe Executive Departments for evidence:

The Reporter’s statement of tbe case: Tbe following are tbe facts, of tbe case as found by the court: I. Claimant was duly and legally commissioned a commander in tbe Navy of tbe United States, by and with tbe consent of tbe Senate, on tbe 2d day of January, 1872, to take rank from tbe 25th day of May, 1871. II.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The claim in this case was originally presented to the Southern Claims Commission, before whom evidence was adduced, and by that tribunal disallowed, because not satisfied of the loyalty of the claimant’s decedent, and for the further reason that the payment to the claimant of the proceeds of the steamboat as hereinafter set out was intended 11 by both parties as final payment both for the value and the use of the boat.” The claim was…

The ’Reporters’ statement of the case: Tlie following are the facts of the case as found by the court. I. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Los Angeles, in the county of Los Angeles and State of California. On June 20,1892, the following advertisement for proposals was made by J. G-. 0.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe following are tbe facts as found by tbe court: I. Tbe claimant applied for and obtained a valid license, No. 514, for tbe year beginning July 1,1892, and ending June 30, 1893, to manufacture sugar from sugar cane grown witbin tbe United States at tbe Mórbiban plantation, in tbe parish of Iberia, in tbe State of Louisiana, under tbe act of Congress approved October 1, 1890 (26 Stats., 567-583).

The Reporters’ statement of the ease : The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court. Nothing is left to the discretion of the President or any army board. The antecedent condition being found, the law itself, and not the order of the President, fixes the status. There is no authority to retire under section 1251 Revised Statutes, or any other law. It is to be borne in mind that the object of the act is not to fix the rank of an officer in active duty.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The defendants objections to a recovery appear sufficiently in the opinion of tbe court.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts case as court: I. During the summer of 1888 the claimants, and them, were letter carriers… Held: that such contract is no bar after the services have been rendered to a recovery of the compensation provided by the ordinance. In the present case tlie postmaster went but a single step further than he did in the Charleston Case and secured the signatures of the carriers to an express waiver of pay for overtime.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. June, 1890, plaintiffs, copartners, made the following contract with defendants: “Articles of agreement entered into this tenth (10th) day of June, eighteen hundred and ninety, between 2nd Lieutenant Richmond P. Davis, and Gregory and Company: “ agreement Richmond P. Davis, 2nd Artillery, Acting Assistant Quartermaster, for and in behalf of the United States of America,…

The Reporters’ statement of the case: - The following are the facts as found by the court: I. In 1867 Henry H. Ooston filed a caveat in the Patent Office of the United States at Washington. This caveat is hereinafter set forth. II. Letters Patent No. 197339, dated November 20, 1877, were issued to Henry H. Ooston, a lieutenant in the marine corps, for improvement in signal cartridges.

<p>The Reporters’ statement of the case:</p> <p>The grounds for the motion, appear in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>The Reporters'1 statement of the ease:</p> <p>Tbe grounds for the motion appear in the opinion of the court.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of the case: following are the facts as found by the court: B. Haliday and Samuel S. Richardson, were, at the time of the rendition of the services here-mentioned, partners ■ engaged in a general contracting and building business, under the firm name and style of Hali-day & Bichardson, iu the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia. II.

<p> On the defendants’ Motion. </p> <p>Judgment is rendered on tlie 6th of February, 1893, on a stipulation of the parties to accept the amount allowed hy the Secretary of the Interior. At the time the stipulation is submitted no question as to jurisdiction is raised; under the mandatory provision of the statute the court directs judgment to he entered. The defendants within two years file a motion for a new trial “in accordance with the provisions of the act of Jane $5, 1808 (lb Stat. L., 75).” On March 16, 1895, they file a motion “to amend hy striking from the original motion the words, ‘in accordance with the provisions of scction 1088 of the Revised Statutes”’ and for a new trial “on the motion as amended</p> <p>I. .The Attorney-General's consent that judgment be rendered for the amount allowed by the Secretary of the Interior, he also signing a stipulation and agreeing not to reopen the case, does not ostop the United States from moving for a new trial for want of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction can not be conferred by consent.</p> <p>II. Section 1088 of the Revised Statutes which authorizes the court “within two years next after the final disposition of such claim on motion on hehalf of the United States” to grant a new trial, is applicable under the Indian depredation act of 1891.</p> <p>III. An amendment to the motion, striking out the words “ in accordance with the provisions of section 1088 of the Revised Statutes,” does not impair the motion if it be authorized by the Revised Statutes.</p>

<p>The Reporters’ statement of tbe case:</p> <p>Tbe ground of tbe defendants’ plea appears in tbe opinion of tbe court.</p>

<p>The Reporters’ statement of tlie case:</p> <p>The grounds of tlie motion appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>The Reporters’ statement of tbe case:</p> <p>Tbe grounds of tbe motion appear in tbe opinion of tbe court.</p>

• The Reporters'1 statement of tbe case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. During the year 1883, the… Held: to wit, on May, 17, 1885, a portion or minority of the tribe or baud, numbering 42 warriors and about 96 women and children, including-Gerónimo and other chiefs, broke away from their reservation and the military authorities, and thereafter organized and confederated together under the leadership of Gerónimo for the purpose and…

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The commissioner to whom the cases of the above-named claimants were referred to ascertain and report the facts in relation to the overtime claimed by them respectively under the Act May 24,1888 (25 Stat. L., p. 157), desiring the opinion of the court on questions of law arising, submitted certain facts which were agreed upon by counsel.

The decision of the court below is reversed, on the ground that one who receives a commission as special assistant to a district attorney for a limited time or a particular case is not an assistant district attorney within the meaning of Revised Statutes, § 365, and without the certificate of the Attorney-General therein provided for can not recover compensation.